Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 79–108

Chapter 4
Not just frequency, not just modality

Production and perception of English semi-modals

 | Universität Rostock
 | Universidade de Vigo
We review reduction and contraction in modalizing expressions of the type V-to-Vinf from the perspective of production, perception and mental representation. A corpus study of spoken American English shows reduction/contraction as a continuous process which is subject to phonological and communicative constraints. Generally, reduction (articulatory ease) is restricted by a tendency to retain cues to morphological structure (explicitness). For perception, a word-recognition experiment shows that listeners use probabilities to cope with reduction; reduction also promotes ‘chunking’, i.e. accessing frequent sequences as single units. The combined evidence suggests that ‘chunking’, reduction and contraction are not a self-propelled process, even given high frequency or semantic bleaching. Rather, they are subject to intuitive negotiations in speaker-hearer interaction. Methodologically, we make a case for triangulating corpus and experimental data.
Keywords: semi-modals, chunking, phonetic reduction, contraction, entrenchment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Modality, to-infinitives and V-to-Vinf as a modalizing construction
    • 1.2The role of co(n)text: Speech-internal vs. speech-external factors
    • 1.3Converging evidence: Production and perception
  • 2.Corpus study: Realizations of frequent V-to-Vinf items in speech
    • 2.1 Realizations of have to / used to
      • 2.1.1Fricative devoicing
      • 2.1.2 /t/-lenition
    • 2.2Realizations of trying to / need to
  • 3.Experimental study: Chunking and frequency information in speech perception
    • 3.1Design and method
    • 3.2Results and interpretation
  • 4.Synthesis and discussion
    • 4.1Not just frequency
    • 4.2Not just modality
    • 4.3 Converging evidence and the role of reanalysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.04lor
References (82)
References
Aarts, Bas, Wallis, Sean & Bowie, Jill. 2015. Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence, Irma Taavitsainen, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge & Jeremy Smith (eds), 48–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo. 2018. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed or holistic research? Combining methods in linguistic research. In Research Methods in Linguistics, 2nd edn, Lia Litoselitti (ed.), 35–55. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2013. More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech 56(3): 349–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle. 2019. Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE . Linguistics Vanguard 5(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva & Williams, Christopher. 2007. The semantic properties of going to: Distribution patterns in four subcorpora of the British National Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On, Roberta Facchinetti (ed.), 107–120. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2018. Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 129–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2004. You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 479–491. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. WANNA and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Wege zur Universalienfor-schung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds), 292–299. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Judith M. & Sifaki, Evi. 2013. To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 513–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003a. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003b. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 602–623. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Fleischmann, Suzanne. 1995. Modalitiy in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Moder, Carol Lynn. 2017. Chunking and changes in compositionality in context. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 148–170. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Depraetere, Ilse & Lesuisse, Mégane. 2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 220–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations, Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. To appear in Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar, Ilse Depraetere, Bert Cappelle & Martin Hilpert (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). 450 million words, 1990-present. <[URL] (1 April 2016).Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2015. Categorization principles of modal meaning categories: A critical assessment. Anglophonia 19. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 269–290. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-Infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33(1): 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Englebretson, Robert, Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A. & Martey, Nii. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. <[URL]> (1 December 2013). Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick. 2006. The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: The roles of deletion, duration and frequency of occurrence. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Jürgen Trouvain & William J. Barry (eds), 773–776.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Miriam & Warner, Natasha. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39: 253–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, Baayen, R. Harald & Schreuder, Rob. 2002. The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language 81: 162–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2015. The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Clark, Herbert H. 1997. Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62: 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L. & Willems, Roel M. 2017. Word predictability and semantic similarity show distinct patterns of brain activity during language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(9): 1192–1203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Garnsey, Susan M. 2004. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80(4): 748–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Steven, Carvey, Hannah & Hitchcock, Leah. 2002. The relation between stress accent and pronunciation variation in spontaneous American English discourse. Proceedings of the International Speech Communication Association Workshop on Prosody and Speech Processing 2002 , 351–354.
Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Moors, Agnes. 2018. On the automaticity of language processing. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 201–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horch, Stephanie. 2019. Complementing corpus analysis with web-based experimentation in research on World Englishes. English World-Wide 40(1): 24–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Verena. 2018. Expressions of Non-epistemic Modality in American English: A Corpus-based Study on Variation and Change in the 20th century. PhD dissertation, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia & Raymond, William. 1998. Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of ICSLP-98 7: 3111–3114.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle & Raymond, William D. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod & Radicke, Joshua. 2009. Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring. In Formulaic Language. Vol. II: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), 499–520. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Language 46(3): 627–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013a. Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. NIHIN Studies. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg.
. 2013b. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57], Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: to-contraction in American English. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 27], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 243–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David. 2017. Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English – Evidence from spoken language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Chunking or predicting – Frequency information and reduction in the perception of multi-word sequences. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4): 751–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2017. From priming and processing to frequency effects and grammaticalization? Contracted semi-modals in Present-Day English. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 191–212. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morita, Hisashi. 2012. Unification of the semantics of the infinitive in English. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 45: 31–52.Google Scholar
Neels, Jakob. 2015. The history of the quasi-auxiliary use(d) to: A usage-based account. Journal of Historical Linguistics 5(2): 177–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2014. From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll . In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 77–89. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark A. 2009. The strength and time course of lexical activation of pronunciation variants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35(3): 896–910.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A., Dilley, Laura & Tat, Michael. 2011. Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39(3): 304–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language 73: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranbom, Larissa. J. & Connine, Cynthia M. 2007. Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 57(2): 273–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, William D., Dautricourt, Robin & Hume, Elizabeth. 2006. Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18: 55–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, David & Connine, Cynthia M. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58: 254–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, Karolina. 2019. The Statistics of Obsolescence: Purpose Subordinates in Late Modern English. NIHIN Studies. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches, Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 101–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 9–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses [Typological Studies in Language 88]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2011. Introduction: On evidence and convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 32], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1): 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shockey, Linda. 2003. Sound Patterns of Spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Greg B., Peterson, Robert R., Casteel, Mark A. & Burgess, Curt. 1989. Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(1): 88–97.Google Scholar
Sosa, Anna Vogel & MacFarlane, James. 2002. Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of . Brain and Language 83(2): 227-236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tizón-Couto, David & Lorenz, David. 2018. Realisations and variants of have to: What corpora can tell us about usage-based experience. Corpora 13(3): 371–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Benjamin V. 2011. The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics 39(3): 312–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Ven, Marco & Ernestus, Mirjam. 2017. The role of segmental and durational cues in the processing of reduced words. Language and Speech 61(3): 358–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verplaetse, Heidi. 2003. What you and I want: A functional approach to verb complementation of modal WANT TO. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Robert Palmer (eds), 151–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1999. To infinitives. In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference 1993, Leon Stadler & Christoph Eyrich (eds), 505–526. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2011. The grammaticalization of modality. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 595–604. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Tizón-Couto, David & David Lorenz
2024. Learning to predict: Second language perception of reduced multi-word sequences. Second Language Research DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Lorenz, David
2023.  Could be, might be, maybe . In Different Slants on Grammaticalization [Studies in Language Companion Series, 232], ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Levshina, Natalia & David Lorenz
2022. Communicative efficiency and the Principle of No Synonymy: predictability effects and the variation ofwant toandwanna. Language and Cognition 14:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
TIZÓN-COUTO, DAVID
2022. A multivariate account of particle alternation after bare-formtryin native varieties of English. English Language and Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 645 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.